How many are there?

Does it matter?

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:59:37 +0000, Les Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

I believe in God. I suggest you wake up.

'ang on you were certain there was a god before, now you
are just believing.

The evidence is overwhelming - the evidence drives my belief.

for what?
I formally drop my request for Duke to provide his evidence of
his god existence as he now merely believes god exists.

It's your funeral. Enjoy it if you can.

It's doesn't matter to me if you reject the existence of God. You and only you will
answer to God for your decision one moment after you die. And then it will be too late to
change your mind. So have a good life. If you're wise, you will think long and hard
about this conversation. I can't lose, because I tried with you. You made up your own
mind, and you will die with it..

duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:14:13 GMT, GlennGlenn
<

Can we prove it - of course not.

... and there you have it.

That's why we call it faith in God.

But we can use our advanced capacities to dream, to aspire, to reach
out for that possible next step, from which we can profess to truly
be the creation of one more perfect than us.

...and therefore humanity was cast from the Garden of Eden and must now
supplicate itself before the demigod called Jesus, or else suffer
eternally, as is our well-deserved fate.

Well, it is your choice, so don't complain if you get it.

You call that thinking?
Feh.

I dont' know what you call it, but yes, I call it thinking.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:00:07 GMT, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:

The profession by believers is that our universe is a creation of
almighty God who is truly acknowledged as "always was, is, and
always will be". No alternative is available.

Above, you state that the human mind cannot cope with the idea that
all things lack a beginning. Yet you are perfectly willing to cope
with, if not blindly endorse the idea the a creator god had no
beginning.

Yep. I don't understand it. I accept it.

Now if matter and energy
exist, they had a beginning. Then where did they come from?

OK, I'll humor myself and read on...

You'll only find more embarrassment for your beliefs.

2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass, no
energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely small point of
infinitely dense mass appeared which was not there before, and then
it exploded outward to form our universe, including "time" and all
"outer space" as we know it.

The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there an edge to the
universe, and if there is, what is it expanding into?

This is evidence of a god?

What do you think it's evidence of? The universe is a bubble? The
universe is nothing but a germ growing in a yet much more massive
universe which is just a germ growing in........you get the picture.

3. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
"design with purpose". It consists of a central computer (brain)
supported by a fluid transfer system (blood) forced along by a pump
(heart), an energy conversion system (stomach and intestines), a
waste disposal system, an oxygen transfer system (lungs) that is
required to transfer necessary oxygen to the brain and to the body
parts, maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder, etc), and a body
salinity (same as ocean water) exactly correct as necessary for
transfer of minute electrical signals to/from the brain to operate
and control the body.

Argument from personal incredulity. The body is what it is, its
purpose is survival as a species. We evolved to survive.

God set up the rules.

4. The conception equation contained in animal forms is divided 50%
in the male and 50% in the female. We only mix the chemicals. Of
special interest is the fact that the male and female organs are of
complimentary shape in mammals. These two facts are especially
conducive to support planned design.

Probability with two outcomes usually averages out to 50/50. What's
there to be so astonished about?

The procreation equation located each 50% in the male and 50% in the
female, and mixed via complimentary shaped organs during an act of
love driven by intense pleasure. .

5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships
of life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:

The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so.
Nor does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of
the inanimate object.

One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so. However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of the
plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but the plant
does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is, or why it is.

One level up, the cow (complex life form) does not respond to, or
relate to, the human's existence, other than in very rudimentary
ways, because it lacks the faculties to do so. Man, on the other
hand, has a full range of knowledge and a clear relationship
directed backward to the cow including leading the cow by the nose,
but the cow has minimal upward reaction to the man other than the
cow sees the man, but has no idea what the man is or what the man
does or why the man is there.

Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower level, but in
the opposite higher level only in a very rudimentary fashion. Yet
each higher level not only exists but exists "basically unknown" to
the level below it.

What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than the
human? As is seen at each level, the inability, or limited ability,
to relate to the level above it does not in any way negate its very
existence.

We knowingly lack sufficient faculties to respond to, or relate to,
a higher level above man. Does this negate the existence of such a
level? Why should we be able to relate upwards when lower life
can't. By all logic, there should be at least one level above human.

Why should we posit that there is such a level in the first place?
What purpose would it serve?

Because each lower level is unable to relate to the one above it, yet
the higher still exists. God exists. It's reasoning at it's finest.

As humans (mankind), we possess tremendous advanced faculties over
those of the cow - intelligence, reason, logic, love, empathy,
sympathy, knowing we suffer and why, etc. And we can use these
faculties to study, learn, reason, dream, and subjectively conclude
that, logically speaking, some level should exist higher than man.

You can. I don't. It serves no purpose to confuse such dreams with
reality, with two possible exceptions. Quelling the fear of death,
and control of the many by the few. That is all religion is, errrrl.
The funny part is, you braindead morons can't see through the fog long
enough to focus on how illogical religion is.

Yet you continue to accept the possibility via reasoning that we have
a future after death of the body. Ask a cow what he thinks of a
human. Logical reasoning following logical reasoning.

As before, we too are limited in our ability to relate to that
higher level, but in no way does this negate its existence.

It in no way proves it either.

Nor disproves. I believe.

If there is no greater known than man, then man would be the
pinnacle of life, the top - evidenced by the mess we make of the
world - war, disease, pestilence, hatred, man's inhumanity to man,
etc.

Man as the ultimate, the pinnacle, the top, is illogical.

How many levels are there above us? We don't know - we can't even
prove so much as one level. The top level, by all logic, must be
*perfection*. Is it reasonable to think the move from man to the
top is made in one step? That is not very imaginative.

So let's think in term of two steps - one greater than man and one
lesser than a supreme being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the
position exactly, more than man but less than perfection.

I cannot call this thinking. No way, no how. Dreaming, perhaps.
Wishing, more likely.

Faith.

Can we prove it - of course not. But we can use our advanced
capacities to dream, to aspire, to reach out for that possible next
step, from which we can profess to truly be the creation of one more
perfect than us.
*****

So all you are saying is basically is that "god" is a dream.

Nope, our eternal future. By all logic and reasoning, God exists.

This is
your big proof? Shee-it.

Nope. I have never used the word "proof". I call it evidence.

None of the above provides any evidence that
demands the existence of any gods, in fact it is all very basic
argument from assertion, ignorance and personal incredulity.

No Christian has ever been able to provide empirical evidence for
their claims. Not one.
Get back in line, christbot.

Me: Win (hopefully)/no win. The atheist: Lose/no win. No win comes
into play if there is no almighty God.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:01:54 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass, no energy, no "outer space"

Where did you get that one? Science doesn't address "before" the bb.

You're quite right. No one knows.

I say God did it.

The universe is expanding, but into what?

The question demonstrates the ignorance of the questioner.

Then you answer it, dummy.

3. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
"design with purpose".

Only those who believe in creationism "profess" this.

Then you explain otherwise.

4. The conception equation contained in animal forms is divided 50%
in the male and 50% in the female. We only mix the chemicals. Of special interest is the
fact that the male and female organs are of complimentary shape in mammals.

Nothing of 'special interest" in that. Those born with organs not of
"complimentary shape" to those of the opposite gender can't breed, so
those genes only last 1 generation.

Queers have their own problems.

These two facts are especially conducive to support planned design.

Actually, your #4 is "especially conducive" to support evolution.

Evolution is God's way.

5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:

Is explained by the Drunkard's Walk.
We still await any *actual evidence* of any god.

You don't understand what evidence is. Try the dictionary.